Différences

Cette page vous donne les différences entre la révision choisie et la version actuelle de la page.

dictionnaire:the_morphology_of_classical_latin3 [2015/10/26 20:02]
ollivier créée
dictionnaire:the_morphology_of_classical_latin3 [2016/01/27 17:59] (Version actuelle)
ollivier
Ligne 72: Ligne 72:
  
  
-Generally, first declension nouns borrowed from Greek are entirely Latinized. But some of them keep traces of their Greek origin and have case-forms of Greek only in the singular. Thus the proper name of //Electra// shows also in the nominative //Electrā// and in the accusative //Electrān//, like Greek Elektra and Elektran; and so, //musica// “art of music” has besides the normal Latin declension a Greek declension with a nominative //musicē//, a genitive //musicēs//, an accusative //musicēn//, and an ablative //musicē//. When these nouns are in plural, they have regular Latin case-forms, like //cometae, -ārum// “comets”.+Generally, first declension nouns borrowed from Greek are entirely Latinized. But some of them keep traces of their Greek origin and have case-forms of Greek only in the singular. Thus the proper name of //Electra// shows also in the nominative //Electrā// and in the accusative //Electrān//, like Greek Elektra///‘Hλεκτρα// and Elektran///‘Hλεκτραn//; and so, //musica// “art of music” has besides the normal Latin declension a Greek declension with a nominative //musicē//, a genitive //musicēs//, an accusative //musicēn//, and an ablative //musicē//. When these nouns are in plural, they have regular Latin case-forms, like //cometae, -ārum// “comets”.
  
    
Ligne 90: Ligne 90:
 ^ACCUSATIVE|//domin-um//|//domin-ōs//|\\ ^ACCUSATIVE|//domin-um//|//domin-ōs//|\\
  
-Neuter nouns show a first metamorphosis of this declension. They have a Nominative in //-um// as the Accusative, since in neuters the Nominative and Accusative are always alike. So, except for the Plural Nominative, and therefore the Plural Accusative, which are in //-a//, the other casus-forms are the same as for the masculine nouns:+**Neuter nouns show a first metamorphosis** of this declension. They have a Nominative in //-um// as the Accusative, since in neuters the Nominative and Accusative are always alike. So, except for the Plural Nominative, and therefore the Plural Accusative, which are in //-a//, the other casus-forms are the same as for the masculine nouns:
  
  
Ligne 101: Ligne 101:
 ^ACCUSATIVE|//templ-um//|//templ-a//| ^ACCUSATIVE|//templ-um//|//templ-a//|
                                                                                                                                                                                          
-A second metamorphosis concerns the lexical morphemes ending with //r//. They have all the same declension as the nouns in //-us//, except that their Nominative normally is a morpheme //Ø//, instead of //-us// segment:+**A second metamorphosis** concerns the lexical morphemes ending with //r//. They have all the same declension as the nouns in //-us//, except that their Nominative normally is a morpheme //Ø//, instead of //-us// segment:
  
  
Ligne 119: Ligne 119:
  
  
-Is it a third metamorphosis? According to Latin grammars, +**Is it a third metamorphosis?** According to Latin grammars, 
  
     * Allen & Ghreenough, p. 22 : //proper names in //-āius//,       //-ēius//, //-ōius// (like, //Auruncuēius//, //Bōī//), are declined like //Pompēius// ‘Pompey’// :     * Allen & Ghreenough, p. 22 : //proper names in //-āius//,       //-ēius//, //-ōius// (like, //Auruncuēius//, //Bōī//), are declined like //Pompēius// ‘Pompey’// :
Ligne 134: Ligne 134:
  
  
-Does it mean that the proper name //Pompēius// has two allomorphs /pompe:i/ and /pompe:/? When we carefully examine the question, we note that the lexeme has the form //Pompei-// except before the casus-form in //-ī// of Genitive, Vocative and Nominative Plural, which could be a problem not of morphology, but phonology. Actually, if we suppose that the signifier is always the same: /pompei/, we know that according to the phonological rule  +Does it mean that the proper name //Pompēius// has two allomorphs /pompe:i/ and /pompe:/? When we carefully examine the question, we note that the lexeme has the form //Pompei-// except before the casus-form in //-ī// of Genitive, Vocative and Nominative Plural, which could be a problem not of morphology, but phonology. Actually, if we suppose that the signifier is always the same: /pompei/, we know that according to the phonological rule 
-/i/  →  [jj] / V [- closed] — V+ 
 +  
 +    * /i/  →  [jj] / V [- closed] — V
  
  
Ligne 141: Ligne 143:
  
  
-             /i/   →  [j] /   —  /i:/ +    * /i/  →   [j] /   —  /i:/ \\ [j]    →   Ø /   — /i:/
-             [j]    →   Ø /   — /i:/+
                            
                              
Ligne 148: Ligne 149:
  
      
-Some problems peculiar to some case-morphemes:+**Some problems peculiar to some case-morphemes**:
  
  
Ligne 154: Ligne 155:
  
  
-    * Cicéron,, //de orat.// 2,247: //puer, abige muscas// \\ “boy, brush away flies”//, \\ +    * Cicéron, //de orat.// 2,247: //puer, abige muscas// \\ “boy, brush away flies”, \\ 
  
  
  
 +  
 +while //puere// is largely attested by Plautus (//Asin.// 382, //Curc.// 75, etc.).                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                         
 +The Vocative of nouns in //-ius// is in //-ī//, like //Publi Corneli// (C.I.L I((If //*fluui// doesn’t exist in Vergilius, we find the nominative plural //fluuii// (Aen. 1,607), the dative plural //fluuiis// (Aen. 4,489), the accusative plural //fluuiosque// (Aen. 12,180), the genitive plural //fluuiorum// (Aen. 12, 140), and 8 accusative //fluuium//, 9 the ablative //fluuio//.)), 10), and //O Vergilī//. It is also the case of the noun //filius//: like, 
 +
 +    * //tu quoque, mī filī// \\ “you also, my son”. 
 + 
 +
 +According to Gellius (13,26), P. Nigidius, a contemporary with  Cicero, stressed the first syllable of the vocative [‘waleri:], which shows that the vocative originally was in //-ī// and not in //-ie//, but the second syllable of the genitive [wa’leri:]. Nevertheless, we find in Livius Andronicus a vocative //filie//, which is quoted by Priscian (Gr. Lat. II, 305 K). And the proper name //Dārīus//, with an //ī// transliterating the Greek diphthong ei, has the vocative //Dārīe//. And so, the adjectives in //ius//, which have the expected form in //i-e// of vocative, when they are used as nouns, have the same vocative, like 
 +
 +    * //Lacedaemoni-e// \\ “O Spartan”. 
 +  
 +
 +The genitive of nouns ending in //-ius// or //-ium//, until the Augustan Age, in a single //-ī//, which is
 +
 +    *  Ernout, 1953((Cf. Touratier, //Système des consonnes// , 2005, p. 118-119. Alvarez Heurta, //Neutralisation consonantique en latin//, 2005, p. 146-147.)), p. 28: //a contraction of //-iī// like the stressing //Va’lerī// of Nigidius proves”//   
 +
 +
 + like: //fīlī// “of a son”, //ingenī// “of genius”, which is stressed [iŋ’geni:], as in the nominative [iŋ’genijum]. Forms of the genitive with double //i//, like //filii// or //ingenii//, which unfortunately we find in our school textbooks, are late and analogical, created according to the following proportionality :
 +
 +
 +    * //domin-us//           ==            //fili-us// \\ //domin-i  //             ==            //domin-ī ?//
 + 
 +          
 +It is a fact that the genitive in //-ii// occurs once in Virgil  : //Aen.// 3,702: //fluui-i//, but constantly in Ovid; and it was certainly unknown to Cicero.
 +
 + 
 +But nouns in //-ius// have the Nominative Plural in //-iī//, grammarians taught that the Noninative Plural had to have the same number of syllables as the nominative singular. So Lucretius has //radii// (1,147), Vergil //fluuii// (Aen. 1,607), //radii// (Aen. 12,160).
 +Like the genitive plural of the first declension, the genitive plural of the second declension sometimes is //-um// instead //-ōrum//, in poetry:
 +
 +
 +    * //rex deum// \\ “king of gods” = rex deorum.
 +
 +
 +
 +**The gender of nouns** of the second declension normally is masculine, excepted for some feminine nouns, which are names of countries and towns, like //Aegypt-us//.. “Egypt”, //Corinth-us// “Corinth”, many names of plants and trees, like //aln-us// “alder”, //fag-us// “beech-tree”, //fic-us// ‘fig-tree”, //popul-us// “poplar-tree”, isolated nouns, like //alu-us// “belly”, //col-us// “distaff”, //hum-us// “ground”, and Greek nouns, which retain their original gender, like //arct-us// “the Polar bear”, //method-us// “method”. There are also three neuter nouns: //pelag-us// “sea”, //uir-us// “poison”, //uulg-us// “crowd” (but occasionally masculine as in expression:  Caes., //Gall.// 6,14,4 : //in uulgum//  “to the general public, publicly”).
 +
 + 
 +These nouns have an accusative, as with all neuters, which is the same as the nominative, and do not have a plural, except //pelagus//, which has a rare nominative and accusative plural //pelagē// (Lucr. 6,619), like in Greek //Πελαγη//.
 +
 +
 +
 +   ***3.3 Third declension**
 +
 +
 +The third declension seems more difficult and complicated, because it has a great deal of allomorphs both for the lexemes and for the casual segments.
 +
 +  
 +**Casual segments**. \\   
 +The Nominative corresponds to four allomorphs: //-is// or //-s//, for the masculine or feminine nouns, like //cīu-is// m. “citizen” or //dux// (//= duk-s//) (m.) “guide” or //urb-s// (f.) “city”, and //-e// or //-Ø//, for the neuters, like //mar-e// (n.) “sea” or //fulgur// (n.) “flash of lightning”. But when the Nominative segment is //-s//, it leads to some phonological variations in the signifier of the lexical morpheme. 
 +
 +
 +
 +We know that in Latin, the opposition between voiced and voiceless obstruents is neutralized before //s// (and //t//), which are voiceless((Cf. Touratier, // Système des consonnes //, 2005, 118-119. Alvarez Heurta, « Neutralisation consonantique en latin », 2005, 146-147.)) . So, according to the phonological rule :
 +
 +
 +    * [+ voiced]  →  [- voiced]  /  — s
 +
 +
 +the sequences of phonemes /re:g-s/, /ple:b-s/ and /kusto:d-s/ of //rex, rēg-is, -um//, //plebs, plēb-is, -um//, and //custōs, ōd-is, -um// are phonetically realized [re:ks], and [ple:ps] (written //rex// and //plebs//, and [kusto:ts], which becomes, because of the phonological rule of variation of /t/ into [s] before [s]
 +
 + 
 +    * [t] → [s] / — s
 +
 +
 +[kusto:ss], which finally is realized [kusto:s], because of the simplification of group [ss] in word-final position((123 et 126-127. Lehmann, 2005, // La structure de la syllabe latine //, p. 169-170 et 183-184)) , i.e. the phonological rule :
 +
 +
 +    * [s] → Ø  /  — s # 
 +
 +
 +When the morphological segment of Nominative is //Ø//, it leads also to phonological variations for the lexemes ending with an obstruent. If the obstruent is an //s//, as in the neuters //tempus, tempor-is, tempor-um// “time” or //cinis, ciner-is, ciner-um// “ash”, the differences in the signifier of lexemes are not morphological, but phonological: [tempus] being the phonetic realization of /tempos/ because of the neutralization of the opposition between the vowels /u/ and /o/ before an s in word-final position((Cf. Touratier, 2005, // Système des voyelles //, p. 222.)) : it is the phonological rule:
 +
 +
 +    * /o/  →  [u]    /  — s #
 +
 +
 +and [tempor-] being the realization of /tempos-/ before a vowel, because of the phonological rule of variation, called the rhotacismus, which changes the strident phoneme /s/ into a liquid [r], when it is between two vowels, and before (or after) a morpheme border, according to phonological rule:
 +
 +
 +    * /s/  →  [r]  / [vocalic] — +  [vocalic]((Cf. Touratier, 1975, // Rhotacisme synchronique du latin classique et rhotacisme diachronique //, in : Gl 53, p. 267.)).
 +
 + 
 +The rhotacismus explains also the difference between the [s] in word-final position of /kinis-Ø/ and the [r] inside the word [kiner-is], and the neutralization of the opposition between the vowels /i/ and /e/ before [r]((Cf. Touratier, 2005, p. 222.))   explains the difference between /kinis/ and [kiner-].
 +
 +  
 +When the Nominative //Ø// is after an /r/ or /l/ like in //calcar, calcār-is, -ium//, //soror, sorōr-is, ōr-um//, //tribūnal, nāl-is, nāl-ium//, the neutralization of the oppositions of quantity before every word-final consonant other than /s/ explains the difference between the short vowel of the nominative //calcar, soror, tribūnal// and the long vowel of all the other cases //calcāris, calcārium, sorōris, sorōrum, tribūnālis, tribūnālium//, etc. And if there is an obstruent before the phoneme /r/, then this /r/ has a syllabic realization, according to the phonological rule:
 +
 +    * /r/  → [er]  /  [obstruent]  —  #
 +
 +
 +
 +
 +Thus the visible difference between //pater// or //māter// and //patr-is, patr-um//or //mātr-is, matr-um// is not morphological, but phonological.
 +
 +
 +The phonological variation of /t/ into [s] before /s/, and the simplified realization of the geminate consonants in word-final position erase the dental consonant in the nominative, as in //uetustā-s// beside //uetustāt-is//, //uetustāt-um// or //aestā-s// beside //aestāt-is//, //aestāt-um//. But this is still a phonological variation, not a morphological variation.
 +
 +
 +----
 +
 +
 +The Genitive, which is characteristic to the third declension, always corresponds to the same segment //-is//, and the Dative to the same //-ī//.  But on the other hand the Genitive Plural of the third declension is sometimes //-ium// sometimes //-um//, and it isn’t possible to know whichone is to be retained. Then, traditional grammars found an educational ploy. They pretended that the nouns which have the same number of syllables in the nominative as in the genitive (which they call parasyllabic nouns) have the form in //-ium//, like //cīu-is, cīu-is// and thus gen. pl. //cīu-ium//, or //mar-e//, //mar-is// and thus gen. pl. //mar-ium//, and the nouns which do not have the same number (which they call unparasyllabic) have the form in //-um//, like: //fulgur, fulgur-is// and thus gen. pl. //fulgur-um//, or //dux, duc-is// (m.) and thus gen. pl. //duc-um//. But the genitive plural of the unparasyllabic //urb-s, urb-is// is //urb-ium//. Grammars then spoke of “false unparasyllabics”. But there are also some parasyllabic nouns whose plural genitive is in //-um//; they were then “false parasyllabics”. It is therefore better to give up these concepts, which are not really operating, and commit to memory the Genitive (singular) and the Genitive Plural, for nouns of the third declension, whereas the Genitive (singular) is enough to know the other declensions, like //ros-a, ae// for the first declension, //domin-us, -ī// for the second, //manus, -ūs// for the fourth, and //diē-s, e-ī// for the fifth.
 +
 +
 +----
 +
 +
 +If we want at all costs to use these false concepts, we can only say that the unparasyllabic lexemes ending with two consonants have always //-ium// as a plural Genitive (cf. //urb-s//, gen. pl. //urb-ium//; //nox, noct-is// (f.) “night”, gen. pl. //noct-ium//; //ar-s, art-is// (f.) “art”, gen. pl. //art-ium//; etc.), and the other unparasyllabic lexemes have normally //-um// as a plural Genitive (cf. //dux, duc-is//, gen. pl. //duc-um//; //plēb-s, plēb-is// “common people”, gen. pl. //plēb-um//; //imperātor, imperātōr-is// (m.) “commanding officer”, gen. pl. //imperātōr-um//; //consul, consul-is// (m.) “consul”, gen. pl. //consul-um//; //fulgur, fulgur-is//, gen. pl. //fulgur-um//; //ratiō, ratiōn-is// (f.) “calculation”, gen. pl. //ratiōn-um//; //tempus, tempor-is// (n.) “time”, gen. pl. //temporum//; and /patr-Ø/, //patr-is// (m) “father”, gen. pl. //patr-um//; /ma:tr-Ø/, //mātr-is// (f.) “mother”, gen. pl. //mātr-um//; etc. And so, the lexemes ending with a dental (like: //aestā-s, aestāt-is// (f.) “summer”, gen. pl. //aestāt-um//; //custō-s, custōd-is// (m) “guardian”, gen. pl. //custōd-um//), apart from //dō-s, dōt-is// (f.) “dowry”, //cīuitā-s, cīuitāt-is// (f.) “city”, //Penāt-ēs// “tutelary gods”, //optimāt-ēs// (m.) “nobility” and //Quirīt-ēs// (m.) “citizens of Rome”, which have both forms, respectively //dōt-um// and //dōt-ium//, //cīuitāt-um// and //cīuitāt-ium//, //Penāt-um// and //Penāt-ium//, //optimāt-um// and //optimāt-ium//, //Quirīt-um// and //Quirīt-ium//; and //līs, līt-is// (f.) “lawsuit”, whose plural Genitive is only //līt-ium//.
 +
 +
 +As for the parasyllabic nouns, the Genitive Plural generally is //-ium//, with some exceptions. It is not rare finding beside this form also the casus-form //-um//, like //clād-ēs, -is// (f.) “disaster”, gen. pl. //clād-ium// and //clād-um//, //caed-ēs, -is// (f.) “killing”, gen. pl. //caed-ium// and //caed-um//, //ap-is, -is// (f.) “bee”, gen. pl. //ap-ium// and //ap-um//. Sometimes the Genitive Plural //-um// is more usual than //-ium//, like in //uāt-ēs, uāt-is// “prophet”, gen. pl. usual //uāt-um// and seldom //uāt-ium//, //mens-is, -is// (m.) “month”, gen. pl. //mens-um// more rarely //mens-ium//,  //sēd-ēs, -is// (f.) “seat”, gen. pl. //sēd-um//  rarely //sēd-ium//, and sometimes even alone usual, like //can-is, -is// “dog”, gen. pl. //can-um//, //iuuen-is, -is// “young man”, gen. pl. //iuuen-um//, and //senex, sen-is// ”old man”, gen. pl. //senum//.
 +
 +                         
 +The segment of Accusative Plural is //-īs// for the masculine or feminine nouns the Genitive Plural of which is //-ium//, but //-ēs// for the nouns which have //-um// as a segment of Genitive Plural: e.g. acc. pl. //ciu-īs// for //ciu-is, -is, -ium//, //urb-īs// for //urb-s, -is, -ium,//  but acc. pl. //cān-ēs// for //cān-is, -is, -um// and //duc-ēs// for //dux, duc-is, -um//. And it is //-ia// for the neuters the Genitive Plural of which is //-ium//, but //-a// for the neuters which have a segment of genitive  //-um//: like acc. pl. //mar-ia// for //mare, -is, -ium//¸ but acc. pl. //fulgur-a// for //fulgur, r-is, r-um//. 
 +
 +                                                      
 +The segment of Nominative Plural is //-ēs// for all the masculine or feminine nouns. And the neuters of course have a segment //-a// or //-ia//, depending on whether they have an Accusative Plural //-a// or //-ia//.
 +
 + 
 +The segment of Ablative is, for our Latin grammars, the second great problem of the third declension: it is sometimes //-e// sometimes //-ī//. But how is it possible to know whether it is   //-e// or //-ī//? It is quite easy, when we remark that firstly, it is always //-e// with the masculine and feminine nouns, as in: //cīv-e, urb-e, can-e, duc-e//, etc., secondly, it is always //-ī// in the neuters which have //-ium// as a Genitive Plural, because these neuter nouns have an //-e// as a Nominative and Accusative (cf. //mar-e, -is, -ium//, abl. sg. //mar-ī//) or had an //-e// (cf. //animal// < //animāl-e, -is,  -ium//, abl. sg. //animāl-ī//; //tribūnal// < //tribūnāl-e, -is, -ium// “court of law”, abl. sg. //tribūnāl-ī//; //puluīnar, puluīnār-is, puluīnār-ium// “cushioned couch”, abl. sg. //puluīnār-ī//; //calcar, calcār-is, calcār-ium// “spur”, abl. sg. //calcār-ī//; but //fulgur, r-is -rum//, abl. sg.  //fulgur-e//. Even if the nominative in //-e// is not to be found any more, the segment of plural nominative //-ia//
 +
 +    *   Liv. 2,20: //subdit equo calcaria// “he spurs on a horse”
 + 
 + 
 + or plural genitive //-ium// are enough to say that this nominative existed, which diachronic phonetics confirms (cf. Niedermann, 1953, p. 51).
 +
 +
 +The segment of Accusative is //-em// for the masculine or feminine nouns, and //-e// or //Ø// for the neuters and the casual segments of the Dative Plural and Ablative Plural are both       //-ibus// and are common to all the nouns of the third declension.
 +
 +
 +The whole set of the morphological segments which form the third declension can be set out by the following table of six words:
 +
 +
 +^ ^ masculine ^ Feminine ^ neuter ^ masc./fem.^ neuter |
 +^NOM. | cīu-is | urb-s | mar-e | can-is  ;  dux | fulgur-Ø |
 +^VOC. | cīu-is | urb-s | mar-e | can-is  ;  dux | fulgur-Ø |
 +^GEN. | cīu-is | urb-is| mar-is| can-is  ;  duc-is| fulgur-is|
 +^DAT. | ciu-ī  | urb-ī | mar-ī | can-ī   ;  duc-ī | fulgur-ī|
 +^ABL. | cīu-e  | urb-e | mar-ī | can-e   ; duc-e  | fulgur-e|
 +^ACC. | cīu-em | urb-em |mar-e | can-em ; duc-em | fulgur-Ø|
 +^NOM.PL| cīu-ēs | urb-ēs |mar-ia |can-ēs ; duc-ēs | fulgur-a|
 +^VOC.PL | cīu-ēs | urb-ēs |mar-ia |can-ēs ; duc-ēs | fulgur-a|
 +^GEN.PL |cīu-ium | urb-ium |mar-ium |can-um ; duc-um | fulgur-um|
 +^DAT.PL |cīu-ibus | urb-ibus | mar-ibus |can-ibus ; duc-ibus | fulgur-ibus|
 +^ABL. PL|cīu-ibus | urb-ibus | mar-ibus | can-ibus ; duc-ibus | fulgur-ibus|
 +^ACC.PL |cīu-īs | urb-īs | mar-ia | can-ēs ; duc-ēs | fulgur-a|
 +
 +
 +
 +
 +
 +
 +
 +
 +**Other allomorphs of casus-forms**
 +
 +
 +Some allomorphs are to be added to these morphological segments which define the third declension. Concerning the lexemes which have a segment //-ium// as Genitive Plural, some of these have a segment of Nominative //-ēs// beside //-is//, like //uall-ēs// and //uall-is, -is, ium// “valley”, //ap-is (ap-ēs), -is, -ium (-um)// “bee”, or instead of //-is//, like //sēd-ēs, -is, -ium//, “seat”, //nūb-ēs// (//nūbis//, once in Plaut., Merc. 879), //-is, -ium// “cloud”, //uāt-ēs (uāt-is     -is, -um (-ium)// “prophet”.
 +
 +
 +The Ablative segment //-ī//, and the Accusative segment //-im// are found exclusively in the following nouns: //uīs// (f.) “violence”, //sitis// (f.) “thirst”, //tussis// (f.) “cough”, //securis// (f.) “axe”, and //Tiberis// (m.) “Tibre”, and sometimes in //puppis// (f.) “poop” and //turris// (f.) “tower”; the accusative in //-im// sometimes also in //febris// (f.) “fever”, //restis// (f.) “rope”, and the ablative in //-ī//, sometimes in //auis// (f.) “bird”, //febris// “fever”, //finis// (f.) “limit”, //ignis// (f.) “fire”.
 +
 +
 +Concerning the lexemes which have a segment //-um// as Genitive Plural, the masculine or feminine lexemes with final //n// have a special Nominative, which is not a segment added to the lexeme, but an internal modifying of the lexeme itself, which erases simply the final //n//, if it is preceded by a long vowel, otherwise, it changes the vowel with an //ō// long. The Nominative is thus equivalent to a replacive  as
 +
 +
 +    * /o:← (o:n)/   or  /o:← (in)/
 +
 +
 +as in:
 +
 + //ratiō// (f.) “reason” (= /ratio:n-o:←(o:n)/ = /ratio:n-\n  /),//ratiōn-is, ratiōn-um//; //praedō// (m.) “pirate”, //praedōn-is, praedōn-um//; //leō// (m.) “lion”, //leōn-is, leōn-um//; //Dīdō// (f.)  “Dido”, //Didōn-is//;
 +
 + 
 +or in:
 +
 +
 +//homō// (m) “human being” (= /homin-o:←(in)/), //homin-is, homin-um//; //uirgō// (f.) “girl“, //uirgin-is, uirgin-um//; 
 +
 +
 +but exception //daemōn// (m.) ”supernatural spirit”, //daemon-is, daemon-um//  (gr. Δαιμωv).
 +
 + 
 +If the lexeme with final //n// is a neuter noun, then its nominative is simply a segment //Ø//, and the lexeme shows the morphological alternation called the synchronic apophony, //i.e.// the opening of the short closed vowel in a final syllable: the nominative of //nōmen// (n.) “name”, //nōmin-is, nōmin-um// is explained by the lexeme /nōmin/+ //Ø//, which corresponds thus to /nōmi~e←(i)n-ø#/, realized  [no:men]. 
 +
 +                                                  
 +In the masculine and feminine nouns, when the Nominative is /-s/ or //Ø//, it brings sometimes but not always a lengthening of the final vowel of lexeme, as in //pē-s// (m.) “foot”, //ped-is, ped-um, pariē-s// (m.) “wall”, //pariet-is, pariet-um//, //pūbēs// (m.) “grown-up person”, //pūber-is, pūber-um, ariē-s// (m.) “ram”, //ariet-is, ariet-um//; //arbōs// (f.), //arbor-is, arbor-um//, phonetic realizations of /arbos-is/, /arbos-um/. But there is no lengthening in //pede-s// (m.) “infantryman”, //pedit-is, pedit-um, lapi-s// (m.) “stone”, //lapid-is, lapid-um, come-s// (m. or f.) “companion”, //comit-is, comit-um//, //lepus// phonetic realization of /lepos-Ø/ (m.) “hare”, //lepor-is, lepor-um//, etc. 
 +
 +
 +**Morphological alternation in the lexical morphemes** of the third declension:
 +
 +
 +We know that from the diachronic apophony, which is the closing of short unclosed vowels in open interior syllable, it results, in classical Latin, a morphological rule of alternation between a short closed vowel in open interior syllable and an unclosed vowel in a closed final syllable, which we can call “synchronic apophony” and note from the following way:
 +
 + 
 +    * /i  (or u) Cons + ~  e Cons + s #/ \\ or \\  e ← (i) or (u) /  ̶  Cons - s # 
 +
 +
 +as in: 
 +
 +
 +//iūdex// (= /iu:de←(i)ik-s#/, //iūdic-is, iūdic-um// (m.) “judge”, //auceps// (= /auke←(u)up-s#/), //aucup-is, aucup-um// (m.) “bird-catcher”, //mīle-s, mīlit-is, mīlit-um// (m.) “soldier”,
 +
 + 
 +with moreover the phonological rule of neutralization of the opposition between voiced and voiceless obstruents
 +
 + 
 +    * //rēmex// (=/re:me←(i)ig-s#/), //rēmig-is, rēmig-um// (m.) “oarsman, rower”,
 + 
 + 
 +and the variation of /t/ before /s/ and the simplification of group [ss] in word-final position
 +
 + 
 +    * //obses// (= /obse←(i)id-s#/), //obsid-is, obsid-um// (m.) “hostage”.
 +
 +
 +Some lexemes present specific alternations in word-final position, //i.e.// most of the time in nominative; so, /kapot-/ is an allomorph of //capit-// in //caput// (n.) “head” (= /kapot-ø/, phonetically realized [kaput] with the neutralization of the opposition between /o/ and /u/ before a final apicodental /t/), //capit-is, capit-um//; //senek-// of //sen-// in //senex// (m.) “old man”, //sen-is, sen-um//; //femur// of //femin-// in //femur// (n.) “thigh of human being”, //femin-is, femin-um//; //iecur// of //iecinor-// in //iecur// (n.) “liver”, //iecinor-is, iecinor-um//; and //iter// of //itiner-// in //iter// (n.) “line of travel”, //itiner-is, itiner-um//. But, since, besides the genitives //feminis// and //iecinoris//, there are genitives like //femoris// and //iecoris//, it is better if we see //femur// and //iecur// as phonetic realizations of /femor/ and /iekor/ because the same neutralization of the opposition between /o/ and /u/ before a final apicodental /r/ or /t/ as before the final apicodental /s/ of //tempus, corpus//, etc. Then, it becomes possible to say that 1) //femur, femor-is, femor-um// was a secondary regularization of the declension //femur, femin-is, femin-um//, which seemed strange, and //femen//, attested at least by Ampelius (30,2) in the second century AD, is another way to regulate; and 2) the nominative of //iter// and //iecur// can be described by the erasing of the segment /in/ from their signifier: //iter// corresponding to //it(in)er//, and //iecur//, phonetic realization of /iekor/, to //iec(in)or//.
 +The morphological alternation between //onus// (n.) “burden” and //oner-is, oner-um// is actually an alternation between /onos/, the second /o/ of which is phonetically realized [u] before an apicodental //s//, and /onis-is/, the phoneme /s/ of which is phonetically realized [r] because the rhotacismus, and the phoneme /i/ is opened before the [r], because the neutralization of the opposition /i/ ~ /e/ before [r].
 +
 +
 +**Grammars indicate some other irregular nouns** of the third declension:
 +
 +
 +The noun //uīs//, the ablative of which is //uī// and the accusative //uim//, has a plural “formed on analogy of mores”, //i. e.// as if //uī-s// was //*uīs-Ø//, //*uīs-is// and hence with the rhotacismus //*uīr-is//, and the plural //uīr-ēs, -īum//.
 +
 +//carō, carn-is, carn-ium//, with the Nominative /ō ← (n)/ instead /ō ← (in)/.  The Genitive Plural //-ium// is the only one known for //carō//, whereas the lexemes in /ō ← (in)/ have normally //-um// as Genitive Plural (cf. //uirgō// “maiden”, //uirgin-is, uirgin-um//; //homō// “man”, //homin-is, homin-um//; //imāgō// “image”, //imāgin-is, imāgin-um//; //similitūdō// “ressemblance”, //similitūdin-is, similitūdin-um//, etc.), which could justify the educational explanation by the difference between parasyllabic and unparasyllabic words! But the explanation is immediately invalidated by the unparasyllabic word //nix// (f.) “snow”, //niu-is, niu-ium//, which has two allomorphs: /niu/, and /nik/ before consonant. The genitive plural //niu-ium//, is, according to the database of “itinera electronica”, found 13 times by 7 writers in 12 books.
 +
 +
 +The other words quoted among the irregular nouns of the third declension, like //os// (n.) “bone”, //oss-is, oss-ium//, //sū-s// (m. and f.) “swine”, //su-is, su-um//, //grū-s , gru-is, gru-um//, //bō-s// (m. and f.) “ox, cow”, //bou-is, bo-um//, //Iuppiter// (m.) “Jupiter”, (//Iūpiter//), //Iouis//, are all regular, if we know the rules of the Latin phonological system. The lexeme //os// shows the simplification of the group [ss] in word-final position. If we admit a signifier /su:/ for //sū-s, su-is, su-um//, only the usual Ablative Plural and Dative Plural //-bus// in //sū-bus//, which the grammars give as usual, is irregular. But //su-ibus// seems more classical: it is found in Var., //L. L.// 5,110, Cic., //fin.// 5,38 and Plin., //nat.// 8,213, whereas //sū-bus// is attested by Var., //Men.// 127, and Lucr. 5,90, and //su-bus// by Lucr. 6,974 and 977 (probably by analogy of //su-is//, //su-ī//, //su-em//, where the long phoneme /u:/ is phonologically abbreviated before a vowel). As for //grū-s, gru-is, gru-um//, it is totally regular, since its ablative plural is only //gru-ibus//. As for the lexeme //bō-s// (m. and f.) “ox, cow”, //bou-is, bo-um//, it is regular, if we admit that the phonemes /ou/ are phonologically realized [o:] before a consonant, and [ow] before vowel; but before the vowel //u//, /bou-um/, which is phonetically realized [bowum], is spelled //boum//, with only one //u// (cf. Niedermann, 1953((Cf. Touratier, //Système des consonnes//, 2005, 118-119. Alvarez Heurta, //Neutralisation consonantique en latin//, 2005, 146-147., p. 104-105)). 
 +
 +
 +**Gender in the third declension**
 +
 +
 +Masculine are the nouns in //-tor//, like //orātor// (m.) “orator”, //orātōr-is, orātor-um//, //imperātor// (m.) “commanding officer, general”, //imperātōr-is, imperātōr-um//, //mercātor// (m.) “merchant”, //mercātōr-is, mercātōr-um//, etc.
 +
 + 
 +Feminine are the nouns in //-tio//, and //-tas// realization of /ta:ts/, like //natio// (f.) “people”, //natiōn-is, natiōn-um//, //rātio// (f.) “reason”, //rātiōn-is, rāortiōn-um//; //cīuitā-s// (f.) “city”, //cīuitāt-is, cīuitāt-um// and //cīuitāt-ium//, //aetā-s// (f.) “period or time of life”, //aetāt-is, aetāt-um// and //aetat-ium//, etc.
 +
 + 
 +Neuter are the nouns in //men, min-is// like: //nōmen// (n.) “name”, //flumen, fulmen//, etc.; in        //-ma, -matis, -al// like //pŏēma// (n.) “poem”, //pŏēmātis, pŏēmātum// (gr. //Πoíημα//), //animal// (n.) “animal”, //animāl-is, animāl-ium//, //tribūnal// (n.) “court of law”, //tribūnāl-is, tribūnāl-ium//, etc. with the exception of //sāl// (m.) “salt”, //sal-is, sal-um//; in //-ale, -ar, -are, -ur// like //rōbur// (n.) “oak-tree”, //rōbor-is, rōbor-um//, //fulgur// (n.) “flash of lightning”, //fulgur-is, fulgur-um//, etc. but with the exception of //turtur// (m.) “turtle-dove”, //turtur-is, turtur-um//, and //uultur// (m.) “vulture”, //uultur-is, uultur-um//; in //-us// like //corpus// (n.) “body”, //corpor-is, corpor-um//, //tempus// (n.) “time”, //tempor-is, tempor-um//, //pecus// (n.) “flock”, //pecor-is, pecor-um//, etc. with the exceptions of //lepus// (m.) “hare”, //lepor-is, lepor-um// and //pecus// (f.) “pet”, //pecud-is, pecud-um//; also //lac// (n.) “milk”, //lact-is, lact-um//, and //caput// (n.) “head”, //capit-is, capit-um//.
 +
 + 
 +   *** 3.4. Fourth and fifth declension**
 +
 +
 +These two declensions don’t concern many nouns, but any very much used and usual nouns. The fourth declension is defined by a Nominative in //-us// for the masculine or feminine nouns or in //-ū// for the neuters, and by a Genitive in //-ūs//, which is common to all the nouns. This Genitive thus distinguishes the words of the fourth declension from the ones of the second declension. 
 +
 +
 +The following table shows the different morphological segments of the fourth declension:
 +
 +
 +^ ^ ^ + PLURAL ^  ^ + PLURAL | 
 +^NOM. |exercit-us | exercit-ūs | corn-ū | corn-ua|
 +^VOC. |exercit-us | exercit-ūs | corn-ū | corn-ua|
 +^GEN. |exercit-ūs | exercit-uum | corn-ūs |corn-uum|
 +^DAT. |exercit-uī (ū) | exercit-ibus | corn-ū | corn-ibus|
 +^ABL. |exercit-ū | exercit-ibus |corn-ū | corn-ibus|
 +^ACC. |exercit-um | exercit-ūs| corn-ū| corn-ua|
 +
 +
 +Some lexemes show allomorphs of case-endings; //lacus, -ūs// (m.) “lake”, //arc-us, -ūs// (m.) “bow”, and //quercus, -ūs// (f.) “oak-tree” have //-ubus// as segments of Ablative Plural and Dative Plural. The lexeme //domus, -ūs// (f.) “house” hesitates between the fourth declension and the second declension. It has all the casus-forms of the fourth declension, but some of the second declension are preferred and more usual: it is the Genitive and Ablative: //dom-ī// and //dom-ō// (including the Genitive traditionally called the locative: //dom-ī//), and the Accusative Plural and Genitive Plural: //dom-ōs// and //dom-ōrum//.
 +
 +
 +Most nouns of the fourth declension are masculine, like: //exercitus, -ūs// (m.) “army”, //senātus, -ūs// (m.) “senate”, //fluctus, -ūs// “billow”, //magistrātus, -ūs// “magistrate”, //artus, -ūs// “joint”, etc. but a few nouns are feminine, like: //mān-us, -ūs// (f.) “hand”, //tribus, -ūs// (f.) “tribe”, //portic-us, -ūs// (f.) “portico”, //querc-us, -ūs// (f.) “oak-tree”, and the plural tantum: //id-ūs, -uum// (f.) “the 15th (or 13th) day of the month”. 
 +There are only four neuters: //corn-ū, -ūs// (n.) “horn”, //genū, -ūs// (n.) “knee”, //uer-ū, -ūs// (n.) “spit”, and //pec-ū, -ūs// “farm animals”, which moreover varies between the fourth and third declension (cf. //pecus, pecor-is, pecor-um// (n.) “flock”).
 +
 +
 +The fifth declension concerns even fewer nouns than the fourth; they are all feminine (//rē-s, -ī// (f.) “thing”, //spēs, -ī// (f.) “hope”, //speciēs, ī// (f.) “visual appearance”, //fidē-s, -ī// (f.) “trust”), except //merīdiē-s, -ī// (m.) “midday, noon” and //diē-s, -ī// (m.) “day”, which, however, sometimes is feminine, especially in phrases indicating a fixed time and when it means  time in general, like //constitūtā diē// “on a set day” or //longa diēs// “a long time”.
 +
 + 
 +Several nouns vary between the fifth and the first declension: like //māteriē-s, -ī// (f.) and //māteri-a, -ae// “material”, //saeuitiē-s, -ī// (f.) and //saeuiti-a -ae// “savageness”. The genitive and dative in //e-ī// of these words are rarely found. 
 +
 + 
 +Other words vary between the fifth and the third declension: like //requiē-s, requiēt-is// “rest” with acc. //requi-em//, and ablative //requi-ē//, //plēbē-s, ī// (f.) and //pleb-s, b-is// “common people” with genitive //plēbī// in //tribūn-us plēb-ī// and dative //plēbe-i//, //famēs// “hunger” with genitive //fam-is// and ablative //fam-ē//.
 +
 +                                                              
 +Morphological segments of the fifth declension are shown in the following table for the two nouns which alone are declined throughout:
 +
 +
 +^ ^ ^+ Pl. ^  ^+ Pl.|
 +^NOM.| rē-s | rē-s | diē-s | diē-s|
 +^GEN. | re-ī | rē-s | die-ī | diē-s|
 +^DAT.| re-ī | rē-rum | die-ī | diē-rum|
 +^ABL. | rē-Ø | rē-bus| diē-Ø | diē-bus|
 +^ACC. | re-m | rē-bus | die-m | diē-bus|
 +
 +
 +
 +
 +
 +
 +
 +The genitive was, in the archaic period, in //-s//, like //diēs// (in Ennius, //ann.// 413), but also at the classical time, according to Gellius (IX, 14), who cites Cicero
 +
 +    *  Cicero, //Sest.//, 28: //poenas illius dies//
 +
 +and even Vergil
 +
 +    *  Vergil, //georg.// 1,208: //dies somnique horas//.
 +
 +
 +Thus he concludes that "the Ancients declined"...
 +
 +
 +    * Gellius, IX, 14,2 : //Sic enim pleraque aetas veterum declinavit:  //haec facies, huius facies//,quod nunc propter rationem grammaticam "faciei" dicitur.// \\ ... which is now said //faciei// because of the grammatical analogy”. 
 + 
 +  But according to Ernout,
 +  
 +
 +    * Ernout, 1953((Cf. Touratier, //Système des consonnes//, 2005, 118-119. Alvarez Heurta, // Neutralisation consonantique en latin// , 2005, 146-147. )), p. 69 : //early, as in the first declension, the segment //ī// replaced the //-s//, which gave //"diēī"// and //"faciēī"//
 + 
 + 
 +(cf. Vergil //Aen.//, 9,156: //nunc adeo, melior quoniām pārs/āctă dĭ/ēī//, and Plautus //Mil.// 103: //māgnā/ĭ rē/ī pūb/lĭcā/ī grā/tĭā//). Then, the vowel //ē// becomes short before another vowel, and according to Niedermann, 
 +
 +    * Niedermann 1953((Cf. Touratier, //Système des consonnes//, 2005, 118-119. Alvarez Heurta, // Neutralisation consonantique en latin// , 2005, 146-147. )), p. 58 : //"//ei//" is become "//ī//" in the first half of the 2nd century BC, after it has been through an "//ệ//”. 
 + 
 + Gellius note that this evolution is attested by Vergil 
 +
 +    * Vergil //Aen.// 1,636: //munera laetitiamque dii//  \\  “the gifts and the delight of the day”.  
 +
 +
 +And he adds that
 +
 +    * Gellius, IX, 14,8 : quod inperitiores "dei" legunt ab insolentia scilicet vocis istius abhorrentes.   “some not very well informed persons read dei, because they refuse this unusual form” . 
 + 
 +
 + He concludes thus that 
 +
 +
 +    * Gellius, IX, 14,9 : //Sic autem "dies, dii" a veteribus declinatum est, ut "fames, fami", "pernicies, pernicii", "progenies, progenii", "luxuries, luxurii", "acies? acii// \\ “the Ancients declined also dies dii, like fames fami, pernicies pernicii, progenies progenii, luxuries luxurii, acies acii” , 
 + 
 + 
 +which he proves by giving a long list of examples, one of which in Cicero
 +
 +    *  Cicero, //Sext. Rosc.// 131: //pernicii causa// \\ “in order to destroy”. 
 + 
 +The three forms of the Genitive segment, which actually appeared at different times, coexist in classical Latin, since they are found both in Cicero and in Vergil. But Gellius points out that
 +
 +
 +    *  Gellius, IX, 14,25 :  //Sed C. Caesar in libro de analogia secundo "huius die" et "huius specie" dicendum putat.// \\ “C. Caesar, in  the second book De analogia, thinks that huius die and huius specie must be said” ,
 +     
 + 
 +and says that he found the genitive //die// in an excellent manuscript of Sallustus’ 
 +
 +
 +    * Sallustus , //Iug.// 97: //uix decima parte die relicua// \\  “while only the tenth part of the day still remained”. 
 + 
 + 
 +There were therefore four forms of Genitive, at least for the word //diē-s//: an archaic form //diē-s//, the usual form //diē-ī// or //die-ī//, and some perhaps progressive forms //diī// and //die//.
 +
 +          
 +The Dative of the fifth declension, which is in //-ei// or //-ē//, is rare, because in prose and spoken language, the usual dative (and genitive) of the type //māteriē-s// was //materi-ae//. And according to Gellius, 
 +
 +
 +    * Gellius, IX, 14,21 : //qui purissime locuti sunt, non "faciei", uti nunc dicitur, sed "facie" dixerunt.//  \\ “in the dative, the purists didn’t say faciei¸ but facie” . 
 + 
 + 
 +Unlike the genitive, the final //-ei// seems always monosyllabic in the ancient poets((Cf. Plaut., //Amph.// 276: //die//; 674: //re// elided; //Merc.// 300: //rei// monsyllabic; //Trin.// 757: //rei// monosyllabic; //Pers.// 193: //fide// elided; //Poen.// 890; //Trin.// 117 and 142.))   except Lucrecius, who alone uses a dissyllabic dative //rēī// like the genitive (cf. Lucr. 1,688 and 2,236).
 +
 +     
 +The Nominative Plural is very rare, except for //diē-s// and //rē-s//; there are only some examples of //faciē-s, spēciē-s// and //spē-s//, among which, beside the expected nominative plural //spē-s// (Plaut., Rud. 1145), we find the nominative //spēr-ēs//((Cf. Ennius, //ann.// 128 and 429.)) , which was treated as if it was from the third declension, and was thus analyzed like /spēs-ēs/, which became, because of the rhotacismus, //spērēs//.
 +
 +
 +In genitive plural and dative-ablative plural, we found actually only //diē-rum rē-rum// and //diē-bus rē-bus//. Priscianus quotes a genitive //faciē-rum// (//Gr. lat.// II, 368 K) which was said to have been used by Cato, but Cicero says that if specierum and speciebus could exist in Latin, he himself could not use them, because they have no declension (//Top.// 2,30); and Quintilianus did not know “what spes will do in plural” (1,6,26).
 +
 +
 +\\ 
 +\\ 
 +\\ 
 + 
 +
 +\\
 +[[:encyclopédie_linguistique:notions_linguistiques:morphologie:The morphology_of_classical Latin|Retour au plan]] ou 
 +[[:dictionnaire: The morphology of classical latin4|Aller au § 4.]]
  
  
-TEXTE IMCOMPLET